THE STUDENTS GUIDE TO HIGH SCHOOL ECONOMICS 2#

CHAPTER 1. THE STUDENTS GUIDE TO HIGH SCHOOL ECONOMICS.

This book was once 100 pages. It no longer exists. It was read by Kym Beazley and considered for publication by caucus.
But it was lost in a computer accident.
And that is the truth.
And it may be close to the truth. But it is very true that it is not quite the truth.
The book was on microfiche and the microfiche were lost.
That is the absolute truth. But I sometimes tell the other story because it is easy to understand.
Anyone who has a computer can understand.
Now we have covered what happened to the 100-page book.
It is has been summarized and put into a 30-page book.
That we took 1/3 and that means it is still as good.
And it really does.

It is just as much infinite as the 100-page book.
So we might make it 33 pages. If I feel like working that hard.
That's what's good about mini books I don’t have to write 30 pages.
I can write twenty.
But I may have a lot to say. And I will about economics.
Because to begin with economics is a science.
It is based on mathematics.
And that was not the way I learned it. They could have taught economics maths.
But they taught economics as supply and demand.
And that is really easy to understand.
But it not something that you would believe.
Because you know the mathematics.
And I can only talk about what happens to the economy in a boom.
Because that is what I would like to begin with.

In a boom. Demand exceeds supply. And supply exceeds demand.
And that may not be true. But it is.
Because overall supply must exceed demand.
And it does not.
But there are sections of the economy that are the opposite.
And why is that important.
Because the economy is booming yet some people are not doing well.
That is where the money should be directed.
To the people who are not experiencing a boom?
And that is totally right.
The best thing is to spend money on sections of the economy that are not booming.
And then the whole economy will be booming.
And that is a positive thing. If the budget is balanced. And that is what people believe.
That if there is a balanced budget.
It doesn’t produce inflation if there is a boom.
But it isn’t necessarily true.
Inflation is the cost of housing. Is the worst kind of inflation?
And it really does effect the cost of goods and services.
And that is what I believe.
That because of the GST goods and services are as low in price as they have ever been.
Because Iam a monetarist.

And I might not be I might not believe in Keynesian economics.
And that kind of economics means that greed is good.
That is modern way of simplifying the arguement.Because it is about enlightened self interest. People make economic decisions in their own interests.
Altruism is ruled out.
The best thing for the economy is if people are economically selfish.
That is what makes it work.
But people are not always selfish.
That is they make decisions that effect others.
That are the opposite to self interest.
And that is the truth.
That we don’t have to have a system where we do not care about other people.
The system of laissar faire.
Where do as little as possible to interfere with the economy.

This is generally considered to be the right thing.
But it really the worst possible thing.
Because if the economy really is based on enlightened self interest.
Then everybody is after what they can get.
Not seeking to give what they can give.
But of course they have to give in order to receive.
And that is enlightened self-interest.
But what about giving above and beyond what you have to.
That is not self-interest.
What a tradesman who takes pride in his work.
Who has a work ethic. And that is something for sociology and Max Weber.
The protestant work ethic.
That is a part of economics that does not involve enlightened self-interest.
It could be argued that the work ethic is because you are rewarded.
But people in poorer countries where they don’t get paid as much still work hard.
And they do when they are not Protestants.
But that is another story. I will write the minibook the protestant work ethic.
And talk about how Catholics believe in work too.

But right now Iam talking about enlightened self-interest.
And the reason people give.
They give in order to receive.
Is what everyone believes.
But it is not necessarily true that it is better to give that to receive.
Because it is always better to give.
And that is just destroys the idea of lassair faire.
Because it is about receiving.
Because everyone who receives.
Will receive even more.
If there is no government spending.

But that just simplifies lassair faire. Because government spending has to be equal
With taxation.
And there have to be no new taxes.
And that complicates it. Because the higher taxation is.
The more money is spent.
So if you spend less and increase taxation.
You are still a monetarist.
Because something has to happen to the money that you tax.
And you can just accumulate wealth.
And that is something that is important in economics.
The accumulation of goods.
Because gold is one thing that nations used to want.

Their dollar was based on the gold standard. They could not print dollars without gold.
And that is not such a bad thing.
It is totally terrible.
And the truth is not in between.
Basing the economy on gold is the very worst thing.
Because it is rare.
And rarity is something that has to be explained.
Diamonds are rare and water is rare.
Because you can sell water for millions of dollars.
And you cannot. Yet in some areas water is rare.
But to spend money on a rare thing.
You have to save it.
And that means that to buy gold.
You have to save a lot of money.

And it isn’t wrong to save.
But if you are going to spend money to print money.
It is expensive.
And money can be printed for nothing.
And it is. Printed with no value.
Because when it is printed. It has no value.
No face value.
And the government guarantees to pay $1.00 in gold for every bill.
And it does not.
There is nowhere you can go to get $1.00 in gold for every bill.
And there is a standard.
That is the price of gold.
And diamonds and oil.
All of these things are rare. But there is a dollars price for anything.
That is why the system.
Still works.

Everything has its dollar value.
But when we trade with overseas our dollar is measured.
By our GNP (Gross National Product).
Because it is measured by our exports.
And our imports.
But mainly it is measured by our imports.
Because if we import more than we export our dollar will be low.
And that isn’t true.
If we import more than we export our dollar will be high.
Because if our dollar is low so will our exports be more.
If we had the gold standard or even the oil standard.
The price of a barrel of oil would be the same in every country.
But we all have to have enough oil to print the money.
So of course that wouldn’t work.

So the price of a barrel of oil is the real standard.
And it might be.
We should aim to have the same price for a barrel of oil as the US.
Then our dollars would be equivalent.
And that wouldn’t work.
So write an essay on why it would not.
Because you must have a reason before you say it wouldn’t work.
If our dollar were the same as the US dollar.
Then goods and services would cost the same in the US and Australia.
That would mean adopting the greenback.
And not necessarily because it might mean the US adopting the Australian dollar.
That is how silly it is to offer the Australian dollar to pacific nations.
They know it is better.
So they will say no.
Because they know imports will increase.
And their own exports will decrease.
So naturally they say no.
But why should we say yes. We should say yes to the US dollar.
For a good reason.
We can sell our goods at the same price as similar goods in the USA.
That gives us competitive advantage.
And it really does not.
But compared to what we have now.
It is a competitive advantage.

Australia has a choice become closer to Europe or become a state of the USA.
And that may be the real truth of the matter.
We can stay as we are.
And we just cannot.
The whole world is to divided into two.
And we must choose which master we shall have.
The Greenback is better than the Australian dollar.
We can print those.
And have financial unity with the USA.
That is what a free trade agreement really is.

It is financial unity.
Politically we can remain the same.
And we might think so. But we cannot have financial unity with political unity.
I would like to argue for a free Australia.
But that free Australia may be like Singapore in world war two.
Occupied by a foreign power.
Because we cannot be policeman of the South Pacific without atomic weapons.
And we cannot have atomic weapons unless we are part of the US defense system.
It may not be that Australia does not want atomic weapons.
It may be that the US does not fully trust us.
And that is the reality.
It is to our advantage to be a part of the US.
But it may not be to their advantage.
I would suggest we consider our position.
We can join the EEC where we would be a second rate partner.
Or we can join the United States of America and be a full partner.

So we are considering financial and political union with the USA.
What would that mean our government would no longer be federal.
There would be no states.
They government would have the same rights as any of the other states.
And financially would we be better off.
We may find those problems such as homelessness and drugs and violence all increase.
Because the Federal Department of housing would be in Washington.
On the other side of the world.
And would they care about us.
Or would they save money at the expense of Australia.
That is why I suggest Federal departments.
The Federal department of invention and innovation.
The Federal department of homelessness.
The Federal department of housing
That's three.
And there could be more.
Because the states could be one state.
And we could have one government. And it could a Federal republic of Australia.
And that is like the idea of joining the US.
The state government would still run things.
But it would be Washington that pays the money.
Our taxes would be part of the total GNP of the US.
And we would get our share of the total GNP.

And we may be better off.
That is the whole question.
Even if we are not we cannot join the EEC.
That means our Australian dollar will be worthless.
So have to change our position.
On unity with the USA.
We have to have monetarist polices.
Because conservative politics is what the USA has.
And Australia has similar policies.

But that means the end of labor.
And it doesn’t have to be the end.
Because labour could run for the federal government.
And win government of the United States.
Because we wouldn’t be foreign citizens we would be in our own land.
Washington would be as much Australia as Sydney.
And it is impossible to be unhappy.
With the whole prospect.
And it is not possible to be happy.

Because that is what it is all about.
Can we join Europe and have one common defense policy.
That means Australia will always be defended.
Because Britain can no longer act independently.
But the US can.
And that is the reason I have spoken in favor of union with the USA.
Because Union with Europe is no different.
It is still what is not right.
Even if I argue in favor of joining Europe.
It is still better to be a state of the USA.

That means both should not be considered.
But if we are going to consider joining the EEC.
Lets first see what the US has to offer.

This is off the topic. But really it is not. Economics is about financial unity.
And it really has never been about that.
But things are changing.
Now it is all about being one nation.
Together fighting for the same cause.
And that cause is terrorism.
Because we fighting terrorism as one nation.
That means whatever the US does we do too.
And that policy is what I want to change.
Because we must consider doing what the EEC sais.
And that is the opposite to what the US sais.
And if it were who would we obey.
You cannot serve two masters you will either love the one and hate the other.
That means Britain and America.
Cannot both be served.
Unless they agree.

At the moment Britain does whatever the US sais.
But in time it will do what the EEC sais.
And we will do the same.
Because we will cease to be a part of the USA.
And that is up to us.
If we trust the EEC.
Then we can trust Britain to be the same as the EEC.
Because Britain will not be part of the USA.

And course you are foreign minister. And you thought you would take a peek at this little
Booklet.
But you are not Alexander Downer. You are the new ALP foreign minister.
And you are not afraid of the EEC.
You are more afraid of the USA.
And you have reason.
And you might have.
But you should be afraid of the EEC.
Because they don’t stand for the same values as the USA.

Back to economics. Of course I have never left the subject.
And I have been talking about the Australian dollar.
What can be done is we can print more money.
We can print so much that exports are in demand.
And imports increase in price. Making them less popular.
And when this has gone too far we can print less money.
Until our imports and our exports balance.
Because a monetarist would not balance them.
But a Christian would want people to be able to afford imports.
And also for our exports to be in demand

That is the policy I sent to Simon Creane today.
If he is still listening to the pensioners union.
I wouldn’t be surprised.
Because he is a good man.
Who even cares about the unemployed workers union.
You want to join. The pensioners an unemployed workers union.
You will find us on the web.
Because by now we have a website.

It is a wonderful life. And that was the title of a film about Jimmy Stewart.
Jimmy wanted to end it all.
Because his credit union had lost all it’s money.
But an angel showed Jimmy that he had a wonderful life.
That his credit union had made all the difference in Bedford Falls.
Because he showed him what life was like without him.
The credit union made loans to poor people to buy houses.
That means they lent at a low rate of interest.
And it might have meant that.
Only interest is controlled by the Federal Government. And they are in Washington.
Or are they in Bonn.
You can’t do what Jimmy Stewart did and grant loans without collateral.
And you might not be allowed to.

But interest rates are too low.
And that is what everybody believes.That a housing boom is bad for the economy. I will try to help you understand what is happening with the economy.
In terms of supply and demand.
The supply of housing is not keeping up with the demand.
That means government spending on housing has increased.
And it may have.
But not enough.
Because there is demand for houses even at a high price.
That is what is happening with the economy.
Limits to growth are right.
There are limits to growth. And that is the whole problem there are no limits.
Growth will continue until the economy goes into depression.
And that will happen.
Because supply will one day exceed demand.
And supply can never exceed demand.
So that is an explanation that is totally true.
Supply can never be equal to demand. If supply were to equal demand.
Demand would equal zero.
Because supply would have caught up with demand.
So because this can’t happen.
There will always be some growth.
But supply exceeds demand then there will be no growth.
And that can happen if the government is involved in supply.
Because it just cannot.

Because it can.
Supply can be greater than demand.
And demand can be less than supply.
And the truth is very interesting.
The total supply of all goods and services must not equal the total demand for goods and services.
Because if they equal demand and supply are not two things they are one.
And they can never be one thing they have to be two.
That is why 2+2=4 is the right equation for supply and demand.
And it most certainly is.
You can add demand to supply
And that two. And if you add two demands to two supplies.
That is four.
But that isn’t the way to do it.
You have to add demand and supply so that they equal zero.
That means one is positive and one is negative.

Demand is positive and supply negative. And this is arbitrary.
And it is.
Do we make supply positive and demand negative.
And that two twos.
2*2=4
And they are both equal to zero.
Because 1+-1=0
-1+1=0
And that is just for fun.
Because we have two zeros. We know that they both add up.
Because we don’t make them negative and positive.
We make them both positives.
That means S+D= 2
And S+D=2
So when we add 2+2 we get four.
That means there are two supplies. And there are two demands.
And maybe you can find two supplies and two demands.
But the truth is there are really three.
Because we can take 1/3 Demand.
And add it to 1/3 Demand.
And then add that to 1/3 supply.
Then we get one.
One equation for supply and demand. Of course we could reverse it and put
2/3 Supply and 1/3 demand.
And that is two equations.
Then we just add them together.
And it isn’t wrong.
To add 2+2.
And maybe it isn’t right for Einstein's equation but it is right for these.
And that could be the wrong attitude.
If it doesn’t balance for Einsteins equation.
It won’t balance for this one.
That is why we don’t add 2+1.
We have to have three things to add 1+1+1
Because supply and demand are only two things.
They could be a third.
But as that is an unknown it can be expressed as unknown.
1/3X+1/3D+1/3S= S+D+X
And that is for the future for s future economist.
I will just add the two equations.
And I will get 2/3.
And won’t I will get 6/3=3
So that equation is right for two. And it isn’t.
Even though the equation that is 2/3 Supply does not agree with the equation 2/3 demand.
We add them together.
When they mean something different.
To add them means three things that are two.
And two things that are three.
So we have to divide them into two and threes.
We have to know what three things are two.
And what two things are three.

Supply and demand are two different things.
When you try to control demand by controlling supply it doesn’t work.
That is why demand for housing cannot be stopped by the GST.
Or any other tax.
Because making it easier to buy a home.
Is not wrong.
And it is right to make it harder.
To make it impossible for anyone to buy a home.
Because then there would be no boom.
Only the opposite a depression.
Because I don’t want to predict that the boom will come to an end.
But I have to.
Because it is possible to spend more money.
And the boom will still continue.
And that is not the case.
Because spending more money will produce runaway inflation.
And that is what everyone believes.
But what if we print less money.
Then there would be less supply.
And of course there has to be enough money.
But there doesn’t need to more than is necessary.
But that won’t restrict supply.
Because it will do exactly that.
The supply of money can be controlled.
And if that makes sense then you can keep this book.
Otherwise just throw it away.
Because I must be honest I know little about supply.

Because I must think demand and supply are the same as money supply.
And I’m not sure of how they are related.
But money is something that creates demand.
And it is not a real thing.
And that just isn’t true.
Money is a real thing.
And whoever spends it. If it spent it creates demand.
Whether it used by government to pay private enterprise.
Or whether a bank gives it away.
Because banks never do give money away.
But they lend it.
And they charge for it. And that creates demand if the money is not real.
Because the money is always real.
Unless it is not backed by the gold standard.
But there is no gold standard.

But some people would say why does the government keep all that gold on fort Knox.
Because they no longer do it.
And maybe they still do.
But it doesn’t have anything to do with how much money they print.
We can reduce the supply on money.
And that will effect the boom.
The money won’t be there to lend.
And that is the main effect. Just as if you had raised interest rates.
Only even more effective.
The banks couldn’t lend even you could afford it.
Because you can afford it.
But they cannot.
And that is a fantasy.
And it might not be.
It might be reality.
That money doesn’t grow on trees.
And that it does.
That it is as simple as ABC.

A For investment.
B For income
C For taxation.

A means however much you invest. You will still be receiving the same interest.
And that means an increase in interest rates will decrease supply.
And that is the supply of money.
And income means however much income you have you will still pay the same in tax.
And that means the third.
Is taxation and however much tax you pay you will still have the same income.
ABC is the way to reduce supply.
To reduce supply we increase taxes and that means the money from income is still the same.
It is just that the government must spend it.
That means taxation is not the best way to reduce supply.
For income(B) means we must reduce income. And that means reducing wages.
And that is worst possible thing.
To say that wages need to decrease.

But it is one way to decrease supply.
Decreasing the supply of money can’t reduce income.
And that is a good question.
Whether it is possible to get wages to come down.
By just not printing as much money.
Prices will not come down. And that is an even better question. Is price control possible by reducing the number of notes printed?
To both of these questions I say no.
You can’t change buying habits.
Because people will continue to buy with all the money they have.
But they just will not have the number of dollars to pay with.
But they will use credit.

And that is the total answer to everything to do with economics.
The cashless society is no longer something in the future.
Dollars are created by credit.
That means you cannot restrict supply without restricting credit.
So to avoid a bust.
Credit interest rates must increase.
That is on bankcard.
And that is an awful thing for the consumer.
It means he can’t spend as much money.
And it is better to restrict credit cards than other form of lending.
That beings us to investment.
You can’t stop people investing in shares.
And you should not want to. Because that would lead to a bust.
And any government control of the stock market.
Is doomed to failure.

And I may not believe this. And the truth is. I do not.
There can be interest on shares. That has to be paid.
And it can reduce the profitability of the whole stock market.
Then where would we be?
In a situation where there are no booms.
Where the interest increases every time it looks like there is a boom.
And that wouldn’t be a negative thing.
Except no one would pay interest on an investment.
They would expect to receive interest.
That means the interest that the stock exchange pays.
Should be controlled.
They should not be able to pay rates that are too high.
That is dangerously high.
And that can’t be a possibility.

Because Iam talking like a monetarist.
Because they would never control the stock exchange.
That would be socialism.
But a planned economy that is also a market economy could be the answer.
For the future.
If it is illegal to control the stock exchange when it looks like a bull market.
Then it is.
Not allowed.
But it only takes a referendum the day after the stock market has crashed.
To restore confidence in the market the government controls the interest on shares.
The government could allow just enough growth so that would not be inflation.
Then unemployment would rise.
And would never be solved.

Because the only time unemployment is solved is at the present time.
But there people who have applied for thousands of jobs.
And have not got one.
That is stagflation.
Something which never used to exist. If we could eliminate it by controlling the stock market I would say go ahead.
So lets limit the bottom price of a share.
Let’s prevent it from falling below its actual value.
And that is a dream.
Being able to invest without risking anything.
They only possibility is to succeed.
But the money has to be there to pay the price of the share.
That meass when it reaches it market price.
You have no choice but to sell.
And that is what happens anyway.
And it isn’t people hold on to the shares hoping they will come good.

It means bankruptcy for that company.
But the whole market is saved.
And it may not mean bankruptcy.
Because if you have to sell.
Others have to buy.
And they just do not.
But they could choose to buy at the market value.
In the hope that the price will rise.
And that will work.
But it takes socialism to make it work.
It is takes a government that is committed to a planned economy.

Of course we have ignored interest rates.
And we have controlled the worst rate of all the credit card rate.
We have reduced it.
Because there is a time for every purpose.
We must have control of credit card rates.
We can increase supply when it looks like a depression.
And it is not the time to reduce credit card rates.
It is the time to increase them.
By the time this is read John will have tried and failed to stop the boom.
It will have resulted in a depression.
And labor will have the decision to increase supply.
By increasing credit.
By giving that low interest credit card to a pensioner.
If you need more control over banks than is allowed by the constitution.
Then we need a new constitution.
Control over banks means hope for everyone.
It means the loan will be approved when it is right thing for everybody.
But when it is wrong for the whole economy.
Your shares will have to be sold at what you paid for them.
That means you will loose no money only won money.
And that is for the good of everybody.
To some up this policy it THE SPOCK POLICY.
The good of the many outweigh the good of the few and even of the one.
So I expect to hear a word.
That is SPOCK.
And I expect to hear anger.
About the word SPOCK.
Because money can be lost.
Millions of dollars can be lost.
And the stock market saved from crashing.
And it isn’t a good idea.
And it may be the very best idea I have ever come up with.
Or maybe it is better than no ideas.

Hi I’m the prime minister and I have no ideas. You can’t expect that to be popular.
But that same man will have ideas about not controlling the stock market.
But maybe he is right.
Let us think about what we are proposing.
If there was a boom. There would be some shares that would not make money.
And no one could speculate on those shares.
Because they could if there were above their market value.
But if they reached market value.
Then they could buy. Because the owners would have to sell.
The owners would loose a fortune. And they might not. Because the shares didn’t make money and they would be saved from loosing their investment.

But in a bust supply exceeds demand. And that is just it it cannot.
So what happens is everyone wants to buy because there is a boom.
Then something goes right.
Because a boom is not the right thing.
And a company reaches it’s market value. That means they have to sell.
And when they do since it is still a boom.
People want to buy. Because it is a good price and there are plenty of shares.
The sharks snap them up they wait for the opportunity to buy at market value
Then the company doesn’t go bust.
And the government knows something is wrong so they reduce the income of the share market that it’s total income.
And that does not discourage investment.
Because they are confident the market will not fail.
But they do buy fewer shares.
As they only have so much money.
Because the government has planned it that there is a bottom line and a top line.
The market remains open.
For yet another year.
So the scenario sounds plausible.

But not to you.
Because you are the one that lost.
But you were speculating on making money.
And it is that speculation.
That makes the stock market successful.
And to control it would make it even more successful.

How do value our most precious resource.?
That is our children.
We let them live on the street without and education exposed to danger,
Both sexual and drug related.
They don’t have enough to eat. They don’t have warm clothing.
They don’t have health care.
That is wrong economically.
There is so much they can do to help other people.
And that is the way to look at it.

Every person has a value.
If we gave every person a value from 1-10.Then I would be a 10.
And I would not be a 1.
And that is what everyone would say.
That they are a 10.
And that everybody else is a 1.
Because the homeless they are a 1.
But if they have a home they are a 10.
Because they are children.
But children without a home are not rated highly.
Because every dollar spent on homelessness is a higher rating.

The Federal Department of Homelessness has a plan.
Because it is 2005.
And labor has just won the election.
On a platform that no child shall live in poverty.
They have vowed to take every single child off the street.
And put them in boarding school.
And that life is not perfect.
But is your life perfect.
It can be.
If you have a big mother.
Because instead of the kids calling the government Big Brother they will call her Big Mother.
Because she will see that they go on summer camp with all the other kids.
And she will pay so that they have their choice of camps to go to.
So that because of the BIG MOTHER PROGRAM every child in boarding school will have the same recreation and the same opportunities as every other child.
But how much will it cost.?
It will cost a lot of money. As much as the war with Iraq.
Because it is a war against child abuse.
And it will be fought on every front.
Criminals who are found guilty of molesting children will be chemically castrated.
And criminals who go to jail for any reason will be treated to the same medicine while they are in prison.
So that young offenders will be protected against rape in prison.
It is not perfect.
But it is an answer.
And it will mean the streets are safe.
And it could mean just that.
That they are

The economic value of an average person. Somebody who has been unemployed or homeless.
They can learn like anyone else.
And they can learn if they are given an opportunity.
And opportunities like Hamburger University.
Hamburger is an A university.
For average students.
That means they get A’s if they work hard.
And they don’t fail in first year.
They go all the way to fourth year and get honors.
And they make hamburgers.
And they might if you don’t change your mind about only giving the brightest students jobs.
Average people can do any job as well as people with high IQ’s.
Because everybody at hamburger will have a high IQ.
There is no reason to reject the university for the average.
It means schoolchildren will not face rejection in grade 12.
That will begin a life of rejection.
And may end that life before it has had a chance to begin.

What I would like to talk abut is needs and wants. Because I will talk about other things.
Besides supply and demand.
Because I have not just been explaining the relationship between supply and demand.
But now I will.
If you need something you can’t want it as well.
And you can.
You can both want and need something.
But we use economics we try to make a difference between needs and wants.
A motor car is both a want and a need.
And it is only a need if you have a job.
Because even then you may not be able to park near where you work.
But if you can.
You have to have one.
And that is just absolute rubbish.
Not everybody has to have a motor car.
And I believe it is something everyone wants.
Not only people who are without money.
But people with money.
They want a better car.
So we might talk about How to make a million dollars.
And I will talk about how GMH can make a million.
GMH can make a million be producing a car for the rich.
That is a luxury car.
And that is one idea that is worth considering.
That people who have money buy expensive cars.
And if they don’t have money they buy one that is not expensive.
So you would think that a mass-produced car.
Would be the cheapest.
And of course the are cheap.
When they are made in Japan. And they are a little four.

But what about the popularity of the Holden six.
Every young person liked the Holden six.
And it is possible.
To have a luxury Holden six.
Then it will appeal to people who do have money.
Because the question is people may want a car. They may need one.
But they may be able to afford one.
So all the demand is coming from the wealthy.
You can make it easier to buy a car.
And that is exactly right you could sell a Ford.
That is the kind of car that everyone can afford.
And that is the two possibilities.
That make GMH a millionaire.
They sell a low cost car that is a four.
And a high priced car that is a six.
Whether or not they should sell a high priced six.
Or not is the question.
Because people who are rich still want to save money.

And they still care about the environment.
And If I were GMH I would laugh.
Because no one cares about the environment.
So you can sell a car that even bigger than a six.
Because it can be a big six.
And that will make more money than a big four.
Because if that is the case we are going to be going in the wrong direction.
Because what we want isn’t what we need.
We don’t need a big six.
We do need a big four.
And we need expensive anti pollution equipment.
That raises the price of the four that everyone wants to buy.
But there is no reason to have that equipment.
And that economics.

Because it isn’t profitable to care about the environment.
So when wants and needs are in opposition.
We should choose needs.
People need to be fed. But that doesn’t matter if they are homeless they can go without meals.
But the first step is to provide them meals.
Then access their situation.
And provide some kind of housing.
But we don’t take the first step.
We don’t have soup kitchens where the homeless learn how to cook.
And of course there are some.
But it is not one of the functions of government.

Government provides goods and services. They satisfy needs and wants.
And of course private enterprise can satisfy those need and wants a lot better.
So why not pay a private contacter to feed the homeless. Because there is no money to be made.
If were a matter of profit. If we could find a way to give every homeless person a monetary value.
Then we have plenty of people wanting to help.
And I guess this proves enlightened self-interest.
But because there are always people who do help.
It disproves enlightened self-interest
So why not give them a loan that they can pay back after hey have a job.
That is so much like big government.
They will loan money to receive the same back.
But they will never loan it for free.
Because it is possible that the homeless would not want a loan.
If they would have to pay it back a long time in the future.

When everything had worked out.
Because they would like to have hope.
But if they couldn’t pay back the loan then they shouldn’t have to.
And the loan could pay for their goods and services.
For them to have a place to live.
But what happens when they don’t succeed.
Then they get thrown out.
And they should still get housing when they can’t pay.
And they shouldn’t be expected to pay in the future.
That means a view of government that is correct.
Government doesn’t charge for goods and services.
It charges through taxation.
And that is the principal of good government.
The use of income tax.
And not GST.
Because that is not good government.
And how do I know.

I know taxation should be always be on demand.
It should never be on supply.
Because the GST affects supply in the same way as not spending money.
Because that isn’t true.
The money is still spent.
But it going to reduce expenditure.
And it does affect how much is spent.
And it can’t control inflation.
And that is just it.
Demand can't be controlled by a tax on supply.
That is why we have a housing boom.
There will always be an excess of demand.
And that can be taken care of by a tax on demand.
And that is exactly it.
We have to tax the supply of money.
And that means interest rates. They have to rise.
And if we were like that
We would be an unkind nation.

But we are not raising interest rates.
We are letting the boom run it’s course.
And that is the best thing.
To not tax demand.
Because tax can be raised.
And then there will be more money for government spending.
That why it isn’t perfect.
No one can really control how much money is spent.
And is up to the reserve bank.
To make the decision to reduce supply.
Because Iam arguing that governments spend the money that they tax.
And without a doubt they do spend it just as much as the private individual.
Because the argument that the private individual should have it.
That it stimulates the economy.
Just is not the case.
The budget can be balanced. That is how governments control spending.
They can’t spend less than they receive.
And they can.
But that creates a surplus which is then spent.
So all the money that is taken by tax is spent.
None is saved.
And that is one possibility that does exist.
And government could invest money in it’s own bonds.
And that would be an inflationary thing to do.
Because that's what I would think.
If I were the government.
Because there would be money in the future.
When it was needed.
So we need a plan for spending money over a long period of time.
And we just do.
Because at the moment we can’t spend it.
But when the boom is over that is the time to spend.
And of course the money is in the bank it is government bonds.
So it hasn’t earned much money but it hasn’t lost any in inflation.

So you spend last years budget this year.
And instead of the economy going into recession the surplus that you put in government bonds.
Now stops the economy from going too far.
And that is impossible.
Governments never save money.
They spend everything they get.
And that is the reality for all governments.
But most governments spend more than they get.

And that is the alternative to saving. That is credit. You get what you want right now.
And you don’t have to save for it.
But is it healthy.
We should have to save for important things.
And that is a viewpoint that most people would have.
And it is true that we do save for important things.
Like we pay off the joint strike fighter.
And we just do pay for it all at once.
When it is something that should be paid for with more than one budget.
So there is a place for saving.
And there is no place at all.

Because I must believe in what Iam saying.
And I just do believe in not spending all the money at once.
Because it is the same to spend it in the future.
If there is a reason to reduce supply.
If the economy is not booming too much.
We should increase spending.
But if we decided to save the surplus another party would spend it.
And that is just it.
The money has to be spent or someone else will use it.
But if both parties agreed to save when supply had to be reduced.
Then both would benefit.
Saving is just not a part of the equation.

So let’s make saving a part of the equation.
Supply+ Demand = 0
And that is a good question. Because even though there is zero supply.
There is still demand.
But zero proves something. All of supply is less than demand.
Demand being something that is subtracted from supply.
Supply-Demand=0
Now that is true. But the opposite is not true.
Supply+Demand=Demand.
And that is absolutely true. If demand is infinity.
Because demand is infinity.
There is no limit on what people demand.
So Supply+1/3Demand=1/3Demand.
And that does make sense because 1/3 Demand+1/3Demand+1/3 Demand=.999=1
And that means demand is 1.
Supply+1=1
And that would make supply zero.
And it does add up because we might as well add zero to 1.
As add supply.
Because needs and wants are unlimited.
But the opposite.
Supply-Demand=0
Also is not true. Unless it is supply that is 0.
So this equation is right Supply-Demand= Supply
And supply is 0
So we can add up 2 equations.
Supply+Demand=1Demand +
Supply-Demand= 0 Supply
2Supply-2Demand=1Demand+0 Supply

And that is our equation for 2+2=4.
Because we can multiply supply and demand.
And we could if they were added.
That means we can divide.

2 Supply/2 Demand= 1 Demand* 0 Supply
And that is right if we wanted to multiply. We would have to use the equation.
To get supply* demand.
But because the signs are reversed with minus on one side.
And plus on the other.
So there is division on one side and multiplication on the other.
So what is 2/2=1/0
And of course you can’t divide by zero. But it is a valid equation.
2/2=1
When it is 2 supply / 2 demand.
It really is an ordinary two / infinity.
But it isn’t it is two infinity.
And that is .666*2= 1.3333’
So that is the answer for 1 demand* 0 supply.
1 demand=.999’* 0 supply=1.333’
1.333/.999=0
And that should be true.
And it is. It is 0.7499999
And that is a result of dividing .999 by 1.3333’
Because one is larger than the other.
And the correct answer is 1.333334
And that is 1.333/.999=1.333334
What is different about that number why is it zero.
There must be a reason.
Why it is like zero.?
And I don't. Except that I didn’t get zero I got infinity.
Because you can’t multiply demand by zero.
And we have done.
We have multiplied infinity by zero.
Because the figure for zero is 1.33334
So now we have an idea of how 2+2=4 means you can add supply and demand.
Because you can multiply and divide.
And you get an answer.
But the reality is you can multiply.
Because when you divide supply by demand.
You are dividing with infinity.
And you can do that my making supply 1
1/.999’= 1.000001
So we will make supply two.
2/.999 2 Supply/1demand= 2.000002
And that is 1+1=2
Proving it right that that 1 followed by five zeros and then 1 is the answer.
But I want to try one other thing.
Since we have doubled supply we need to double infinity.
If infinity is 1*2=1
Then we can’t double it. It will still be one.
But if infinity is two.
Then we can multiply .999*2= 1.999998
And then we divide 2 supply/2 demand
2/ 1.9999998= 1.000001
Then there is a slight change there are six zeros then one.
That is almost the same.
So we have reason to believe that supply/demand.
Is equal to 1.
And that does make perfect sense. Supply can’t go into demand twice.
Because demand is infinite.
But one supply can go into demand.
So we have proven something.
About demand that it is always more than supply

Now we have to put into the equation savings.
And it is a simple matter.
And it really is.
Savings are positive they are supply.
Because they are negative they are demand.
And the truth of the matter is something we will prove.
If a government saves money it is not demand.
Not if it is in bonds.
The interest will only cover inflation.
And that is true.
And it really is.
That it is supply of money but not in the present.
That means it is demand of money in the present.
And that explains it.
You are taking money from the present and putting it into the future.
And you could get a high rate of interest.
Or you could loose it all.
But bonds are safe. And everybody thinks so.
So you could agree that only bonds could be used.

That makes our model simple 1+1=2
Because Supply of money = Demand of money.
And if that were true then the equation would be right.
But demand of money is greater than supply.
And that is always true.
So the equation is 2+2=4
Because demand and supply are added together.
And demand for money is unlimited.
And that just is true.
It cannot be satisfied.
And I believe it can.
So we will pretend that demand is greater than supply but not unlimited.
That means the equation is 1+1=2
Because demand has to be greater than supply.
So it could be 1+2=3
That is where demand is twice supply.
And we could increase it until it was right.
If demand is twice supply.
Then to add three demands together.
You have to add four.
Because you need two sixs. And that is 1+2+1+2
So we get 2 supply and 4 demand.
But if we want to get 6 demand we have to add three together.
1+2+1+2+1+2
And then we get 3 supply and 6 demand.

But the premise is wrong.
And it might be. Maybe demand for money can never be satisfied.
That is if you go on printing it it will be worthless.
Which shows demand can be satisfied.
When we add three we need to add in thirds.
That is 1/3 supply+ 2/3 demand=3/3
And that is the infinite equation for money supply.
If money is infinite.
Then the equation is right.
And money of course is finite.
That is why the equation is right.
1 is made up of supply and demand.
They are each either 2/3 or 1/3.
Since demand is greater than supply it must be 2/3
And it is infinite. And that isn’t true 2/3 is not infinite.
But supply is infinite.
And the answer is 2/3 is infinity.
It is double infinity.

And that is why we got 1.33334
Because zero is really infinity.
And double infinity doesn’t divide by zero.
When you divide 2/0.You don’t get an answer.
But of course as Iam the economics whiz and the time travel guru.
I can give you an answer.
Infinite 2 / Infinite 0= 1.9999998/1.33334=1.4999923
And that is an answer whatever it means and it means what an infinite zero divided by an infinite two means.
But if we make two finite.
2/0= unknown
But if we divide by .33334.
We get and answer.5.99988
That is an infinite six.
So we know that dividing by zero is not the right thing.
Otherwise three infinite sixs on you head might be the right thing.

What effect does savings have.?
It means there are 2+2=4.
They’re in one equation for now and one for the future.
The one for now is 1+2=3.
And it isn't. It is 1+1=2.
Because we make demand equal to supply. That means the means demand has decreased.
1+1=2+1+1=2= 2+2+4
But hang on in the future supply is greater than demand.
That means it is 2/3.If there is infinite supply.
2/3 Supply+1/3 Demand= 3/3=1
So we need an equation for the past that is also infinite.
1/3Supply+2/3 demand gives us a situation where supply is much less than demand.
And when we add the two together.
We get 3/3 Supply+3/3 Demand= 6/3=2

That means we have finite supply and demand.
And they are equal to two.
How do we interpret that.
It makes two out of one.
When we save for the future we are making one year two.
And that means whatever happens in one year.
Doesn’t happen in the other.
Because they are two completely different years.
And they are the same.
Except demand and supply are reversed.

The question is whether we should want this if the answer is two.
And the answer is we should.
Because I could prove that the answer was three.
If we had another term to describe supply and demand.
But because there are only two terms the answer must be two.
Supply+ Demand = 2.
Means both both supply and demand are one.
And that is the effect of a government saving.
Supply and demand are now equal.

And if that something desirable that supply and demand be equal.
It is only true where there is infinite supply.And of course there is money can be printed to infinity.
So is there infinite demand. There is. That is why they are equal
Because it is the supply of money.
And that is the one thing we can totally control.
It doesn’t mean we can reduce demand.
Because it might.
Simply by saving money we can spend it when the economy is in recession.
Not printing money is like saving it.
And printing it later on is like spending it.
But you have to be careful about the dollar.
Otherwise if you don’t care about the dollar.
You can control the whole economy.

Because is the theory that because supply of money and demand of money are equal.
That that means supply and demand are equal.
The theory isn’t right.
Supply and demand are not equal.
And money supply and demand are equal.
And you can control one with the other.
And that just is true.
You can control money supply with demand.
And it is correct that you can control demand with money supply.
And that is talking like a monetarist.
And it is talking like a socialist.

What if 3/3+3/3=6/3=2
Applied to demand and supply. Not money but total demand and supply.
That means supply must be less than demand.
And if they are both infinity they are the same.
And that isn’t true.
Because 2/3 is not really infinity.
So If we use 2/3 for supply 1/3 will be demand. And it will be equal to .999=1
Because this equation is right 1/3=3/3
So 2/3 Supply+3/3 Demand= 5/3= 1.666’
And the answer is not finite.
But if we use 1/3 the answer is finite.
2/3 Supply+1/3 Demand= 3/3 Supply+Demand=1
And does that prove my creation equation wrong.
It really doesn’t because 1 is equal to 1/3.When it is added up.
When you add up three thirds.
So if we multiply 1.666 * 3=4.9999998
We get an infinite five.
To make that ten we multiply by two. We get 9.9999996
So that is as close to infinity as we would like to get.
It means you can start with five and get infinity.
But it still doesn’t prove 1=3.
And this is the proof 1*1=1
That means 1/3*1/3=3/3
And that 1*1=1
And that does prove it.
So my creation equation.
That is Einstein's added.
1/3E=1/3M+1/3C+1/3C
Must be correct.
So what does it mean that we can get infinity by multiplying by three and then by two.?
It means we had infinity in the first place.
It means supply and demand do add up to.999’
That is they are three thirds.
So I need not bore the treasurer with more equations.
Just this one.
If supply is 2/3 and demand is 1/3.
Then supply= six. And demand=3
And that is a totally perfect equation. When we use 6 and 3 for supply and demand.
We are proving 3+3+3=9.

TO SUMMARISE.
In conclusion everything I have written has been written about one thing.
That is spending more money.
Because the objective is to believe that spending is what the economy is all about.
And that saving is an alternative to spending.
Because it really is a very good alternative.
And one that hasn’t been tried.
For a very good reason it would be difficult to manage.
Because it wouldn’t be hard.
To do without the money.
But the difference it could make to the economy would make it worthwhile.
Instead of a depression the boom would continue.
And even in a depression things would not be as bad as they could be.
Printing dollars is a great thing.
And can be what caused World War 2.
Because when people get enthusiastic about the effects of printing money.
They loose control.
But if you control how much money is spent.
You can control the whole economy.
You can balance imports and exports so that is most profitable for the country.
Of course you could buy dollars.
And that is what Iam suggesting.
That you buy them by increasing the amount you print.
If you want to sell dollars then reduce the amount you print.
I think you will understand that it is the other way around.
That buying money means decreasing the amount that your print.
But we don’t want to buy.
We want to sell.
And that may not always be the case
A new nation under God.
That is what I have suggested.
That we join the USSR.Because that would not be a new nation under God.
But the US may be the same.
It may not really be under God. And when we doubt in ourselves.
That we are under God. It will make no difference if we are Americians
or Australians.
Because we will be having faith.
But to join the EEC is to join to USSR and it really is.
To join a nation that is not under God.